captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> ifill: the pressure is on president obama tonight, as he meets mitt romney in round two of their debates, this one a town hall meeting at hofstra university in new york. good evening. i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, we get some pre-game analysis of tonight's face-off from mark shields and michael gerson. >> ifill: then, new risks from tainted drugs made by the pharmacy linked to the meningitis outbreak. we have an update. >> woodruff: as the candidates spar over what happened in libya, the violence in syria, and the fallout from the arab spring, jeffrey brown talks with zbigniew brzezinski and walter russell mead. >> ifill: paul solman talks with authors donald barlett and james steele.

their book blames free trade for the demise of the american middle class. >> do we want a society built on the principle that the only thing that matters is the lowest possible price or a society built on the principle that everyone should have a living wage? >> woodruff: and ray suarez looks at cuba's move to give its citizens the freedom to travel abroad starting in january. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: i was worried the health care system was all its own. with united health care i got help that fits my life, information on my phone, connection to doctors who get where i'm from and tools to estimate my care may cost. never missed a beat. >> we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. united health care.

bnsf railway. the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the polls are close, t nation is watching, and time is growing short. it all makes for high stakes tonight, in the second of this fall's obama-romney debates. >> how are you feeling about tonight? >> i feel fabulous. look at this beautiful day. >> woodruff: the president was in good spirits this morning as he left his debate camp in williams burg virginia. he headed for hempstead new york and his second showdown with

republican mitt romney who had been preparing in boston. meanwhile the campaigning continued without let-up. republican vice presidential nominee paul ryan arrived at a lynchburg, virginia, event with flags flying. >> this is not just an election about more take-home pay or more job creation. it's not just about preventing a debt crisis from turning us into europe. it is about what kind of country we're going to be, what kind of people we're going to be. >> woodruff: and the obama campaign turned to former president clinton in a new web video charging the romney tax plan favors the wealthy. >> i know how this works. because i'm one of those folks. if i get governor romney's 20% income tax cut, you can take away my home mortgage deduction, my charitable deduction, my deduction for state and local taxes, and any other taxes that i have and i will still get a tax cut. >> woodruff: meanwhile debate

arrangements wereoncluding at hofstra university on long island where 80 undecided vote voters, selected by gallup, will fill these seats. candy crowley, cnn's chief political correspondent, will moderate. in that role, she's selecting from questions submitted by the audience in advance. individual voters will ask their question. each candidate will get two minutes to respond. and just this afternoon, the commission on presidential debates announced a format change that the moderator will be allowed to pose a follow-up. the candidates will be limited to one minute responses to those questions. >> ifill: here with us now to preview what to expect tonight are syndicated columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. welcome, guys. who has the most to prove tonight, mark? >> president obama. we've been told time and again by all sorts of scholars that campaigns don't matter, debates don't matter. yet since the first debate less

than two weeks ago we've seen a four of point... four-point swing in president obama's disfavor in the favor of mitt romney. so, this is the test. i mean, before the first debate, gwen, republicans were crawling out on the 23rd floor ledge ready to look into abyss. they've more than crawled back in. they were energized and emboldened by mitt romney's performance last week. last week... >> ifill: they handed it over to the democrats the democrats were staring in the abyss. miss manners were offended and other observers of the rules but joe biden did in fact energize democrats. it's all up to the president. campaigns are... presidential campaigns are about the future. he has to define the future. how it's going to be different from what it's been through in the first and the difference with mitt romney. >> ifill: michael. agree with mark. one of the most disturbing things that came out of the

first debate for president obama was that mitt romney took the lead on who has a plan for the economy and who has a plan for the debt, which he had not led on those before. that puts pressure on obama not just to be tough tonight, not just to be spirited. which he needs to be. but also to be forward-looking. difficult communication challenge. in the polls and focus groups that came out after the first debate, it was obvious that people don't want continuity. they actually want change. president obama has to be an incumbent who has an agenda for change which is not an easy, you know, task. >> ifill: and governor romney has to be what? >> he has to keep doing what he's been doing. it's easier to keep momentum than to shift momentum. he needs to continue to distance himself from the worst excesses of his party and have an answer when the president comes back at him on that, which i think will be an interesting part of the debate tonight. he needs to talk about his plan for the future, but he also

needs to be able to empathize with people in the audience. you know, mitt romney is a man of tremendous personal generosity by every account, but that doesn't always translate into an ability to empathize with average voters. >> ifill: you bring up an interesting point which is we're talking about a town hall format. both of these gentlemen have done dozens of town halls with friendly audiences on the campaign trail. but tonight they don't know who is going to ask what. and what to prepare for. how is this different? >> it's different in the sense that instead of saying, tell us what is your plan, governor romney, that's going to save america because i know you're going to do it or president obama, tell us how wonderful you are, the questions that most of them get at town meetings they're going to be what are you going to do about my life? i'm sure there will be somebody with a plaintiff cry almost for help, for solace. and i think this is one place where governor romney is sorely tested. he is not somebody who is at

ease in this situation, displaying empathy in a public situation or identifying easily with strangers. i think the president... i think this is the natural playing field for the president, in that sense of the town hall which you will recall president clinton, then governor clinton, so effectively demonstrated in 1992 and got as a consequence a six-point lift in the polls after that second debate in 1992. >> ifill: does this change the expectation scheme to style over substance cause you want to see what the candidates relate rather than what they say. >> in a town hall format there's more style. you have to determine when you walk, you know, when you walk towards people who question you, when you walk around the stage. >> ifill: when you cheourch >> yeah. i mean, it's the only format where, you know, looking at your watch became a national scandal. it's not a normal kind of circumstance. the hyper focus a these things. i think the biggest difference

in a town hall format though is exactly that one. you can't ignore the questioner. journalists ask you a question, you can ignore them and people actually... >> ifill: sadly. exactly. but these questions are stand-ins for every man and every woman. how you treat them becomes a symbol of how you treat others. >> ifill: especially if you have key groups which are trying to appeal to both or trying to appeal to women voters, for instance, how... do you just turn the question into a question that to those audiences? >> you can't. this is a question really of judgment and of really of feel for the candidate because if you're the questioner and you ask me, mark, what are we going to do about the metric system? we should adopt it for economic efficiency. i can't say we'll adopt the metric system if this son of a gun hasn't said 47% of americans asmooc >> ifill: hard to change the

topic. >> you have to answer the questioner and do it in a way that contrasts difference with you and your opponent. but not in a way that appears just using the question eras a vehicle and really ignores what their real concern is. >> i do think romney's challenge is that empathy challenge. i think the president also has a little bit of a challenge from his history in these formats where he has two minutes tonight. it's hard for him to clear his voice in two minutes. he once had a question at a town hall format that he answered for 17 minutes. so he's going to have to find ways to empathize, to answer questions, and pivot effectively. i think that's a challenge for him. >> ifill: was it a town hall meeting where the president seemingly friendly looking audience member said to the president i'm exhausted defending you. >> that was here in washington. a woman said i'm just tired, mr. president. i mean she was a supporter who had just grown tired in her own travails had done it. >> ifill: what are the biggest

mistakes or accomplishments for each of these guys tonight? >> i mean, the president has to play both offense and defense. i mean, he didn't play either in the first one. he's got to be able to defend himself any time that governor romney raises in his answer a criticism to the administration. but i think the biggest challenge for the president is to lay out the differences between himself and governor romney and also that sense of whoever captures the future -- neither one of these candidates has captured the future in 2012. whoever does, i think, has a real leg up to winning the white house. >> i agree with that. i'm going to be looking for three specific things tonight as well. i'll be looking at how does mitt romney deal with the the auto bailout issue because both of these men are running for president of ohio right now. that will be a big issue. he knows it's coming. his answer will be very, very interesting. how does he deal with social issues because romney is not very comfortable on that set of issues traditionally. it will be interesting to see if

benghazi comes up because how obama deals with that is complex. the answer is is, you know, he's going to have a difficult time providing an adequate answer there without getting into more trouble. so there are some specific things that come out of this debate that really makes some news. >> ifill: i'm writing those three things down, michael. i'll be watching for each of them later on tonight. >> governor romney may not be comfortable on social issues but he has been flexible. >> ifill: you had to get that in. we know what you'll be watching for tonight. michael will join the newshour's live stream later tonight for more analysis. and politics editor christina bellantoni will get feedback from undecided debate watchers at a google-plus hangout at 7:30 pm eastern time. you can follow every moment of tonight's deba oour live stream and live blog on our home page.later in the program, we look at the politics of the obama administration's foreign policy. also ahead, the uptick in infections from tainted drugs; free trade and the american

dream; and cuba permits travel abroad. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: u.s. supreme court handed democrats and president obama a victory today. the court refused to block ohion the last three days before election day. changes in state law would have stopped early voting during that veryone except military personnel and people living abroad. democrats argued that amounts to unequal treatment, and a lower federal court agreed. today, the supreme court refused to intervene. more than 56 million americans are going to be getting just a bit more money from social security. it's part of an annual cost-of- living adjustment. the announcement today said monthly payments wl rise by 1.7%, starting in january. that works out to an average bump of roughly $21 a month, or $252 a year. the adjustment is based on the rate of inflation, which has been relatively low in 2012. regulators in europe have asked google to clarify its new privacy policy and make it easier for users to opt out.

the policy allows the internet giant to combine data collected across many services, from g-mail to youtube. it can then target people with advertising based on their interests and search histories. french officials led the european investigation. they argued today that google's users need much more information. >> as a user, you probably don't know that the data collected through your search can be personalized through the data collected through your... the mobile phone or your localization. so the user doesn't know exactly which is made from his data. i mean this is the major problem. >> sreenivasan: in a letter, european officials asked google to spell out what data is collected, and how long it can be used. the company said it's reviewing the request. in afghanistan, security officials denied that a suicide bomber who killed two u.s.

troops was a member of the afghan intelligence agency. the attack took place over the weekend. meanwhile, the new york times" reported a high turnover rate is forcing the afghans to replace a third of their troops each year. the story cited desertions and low reenlistment for the high attrition. security was stepped up today at a british hospital where a pakistani girl activist is being treated after being shot by the taliban. 14-year-old malala yousufzai was flown to birmingham, england, on monday. within hours, police questioned two people who attempted to visit her, claiming to be relatives. the hospital director said there was no indication of any threat to the girl's safety. thieves carried out a brazen art heist overnight at a museum in the dutch city of rotterdam. seven paintings were stolen, including works by monet, picasso, and matisse, among others. they're part of a private collection that was being exhibited publicly for the first time. police did not explain how the robbers managed it, but one museum security expert said they had to get through a sophisticated security system.

>> the response was very quick. thieves were not able to steal many paintings but unfortunately they got out a few paintings. these paintings will remain on the crime scene for many many years, maybe because they can't sell them they might destroy them. again it's impossible to sell them. >> sreenivasan: the paintings would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars if they were sold legally. the c.e.o. of citigroup abruptly resigned today, effective immediately. vikram pandit and his chief operating officer, john havens, both stepped down. citigroup said michael corbat will step in as c.e.o. he had been the bank's chief executive for europe, the middle east and africa. the company gave no explanation for the sudden departures, but the "wall street journal" reported pandit had clashed with the board over strategy and performance. wall street had a good day, thanks to a batch of strong earnings reports. they came from mattel, johnson and johnson, and other bellwether companies. the dow jones industrial average gained 127 points to close well above 13,551.

the nasdaq rose nearly 37 points to close at 3101. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: we turn to the latest on the meningitis outbreak and tainted medications. the centers for disease control reported today another 19 people have been diagnosed with fungal meningitis. that brings the total number of cases so far to more than 231 people in 15 states. 15 have died. the overwhelming number of cases have been linked to a steroid injection used for back or joint pain. but the food and drug administration is concerned about how many people may have been exposed to the fungus found in that medication and others made by the new england compounding center. it said yesterday that at least two additional drugs-- one a cooling solution used in heart surgeries, the other used in the eye-- may also be linked with meningitis. the widening number of cases and the investigation are triggering more questions. we ask some of them of dan vergano.

he's been reporting on this for "u.s.a. today." welcome. >> thanks for having me. woodruff: how did authorities know that other drugs might be involved in all this? >> well, they have two sick patients. one is a case of potential meningitis in a heart transplant patient. the other is a person who has a fungal infection that's linked to meningitis. it's not a full blown case of meningitis in that case but it's enough that you have two new patients who may have been infected by these medications made by this pharmacy. that's enough to trigger the warning from fda. >> woodruff: and the concern is other types of infections as well as meningitis, as i understand it. is that right? >> meningitis is the chief concern but it can cause infections in the joints and things like that. not a good idea. >> woodruff: but the connection, as i understand it, is not completely confirmed yet. they have the patients. they're concerned that there may be a link but they haven't been able to nail it down yet. >> right. fda is careful to say it's out

of an abundance of caution. that's their language. here we have a potential meningitis case in a patient who had a drug from his pharmacy, but it's not enough, you know, you have to basically have the fungus in the patient or the meningitis in the patient and see the link directly to the medication they received. they haven't been able to do that yet. at this point this is a caution. >> woodruff: at this point we're just talking about two cases, two people. is that right? >> today. two people. that's aside from the, you know, 231 or so patients that we're talking about with the original. >> woodruff: how is the fda going about looking for more people? i mean, have they just put the word out to doctors' offices and hospitals around the country? >> our public health enterprise is going into operation here. state health folks are taking a look for patients. they're talking to hospitals. everybody is reporting it and keeping an eye out for it. typically it's the state that will note a case, send it out, lab samples. if it comes back positive then

c.d.c. adds it to the list. here we have suspect cases where f.d.a. is worried about them. >> woodruff: so it's a matter of just putting the word out and hoping people respond? >> no. i mean we have an active public health enterprise in this country and state boards are tackling it. but, yeah, they're trying to get out the word out to doctors so they notice and report these things, take that first step and worry about these cases. don't give these drugs. doctors aren't supposed to give these drugs to people anymore and to alert these patients. the f.d.a. is saying to doctors, rather, tell your patients who may have been treated with op thal drugs, tell them they may be at risk and have them check them out. >> woodruff: are they saying what symptoms people should be looking for? >> meningitis' symptoms are fever but especially stiff back, headaches, soreness and if that sounds like a lot of things but if you have the combination of having been treated with this company's drugs and those sort of things it typically takes two weeks to develop after one to

three weeks but two weeks is the medium after you receive one of these injections for the symptoms to appear. >> woodruff: so again, dan, what is the f.d.a. -- i know the c.d.c. is obviously involved in this, state agencies, public health agencies -- what are they doing to try to get to the bottom of this especially when it comes to the new england compounding center where all of this started? >> each one of the players you named has different responsibilities. that's how we do it in this country. the primary responsibility is with the company to deliver safe drugs. when that doesn't happen, then the state has responsibilities to oversee compounding centers like this one. f.d.a. has jurisdiction over the drugs they deliver from the facility. and c.d.c. is just keeping an eye on cases. they have sort of the public health side so they see the sick people. here we see the different parts of the enterprise in action. in fact you have state boards essentially finding cases, you know, virginia found an interesting case with an

injection that caused an infection, not a meningitis case. michigan and tennessee very active states reporting these cases and c.d.c. sort of picking them up. all these pieces are kind of working together. >> woodruff: from your reporting on this and you've focused on public health issues a lot. is it your sense that the agency feels they have the staffing and the resources to get to the bottom of this? >> well, they won't come out and say that to us. but clearly f.d.a. wanted more oversight over these facilities. there's this failed history of regulatory, you know, regulations that didn't get passed that they pulled for, lost court case a decade ago where f.d.a. was trying to exert more authority. and the agency, you know, can always, well, the agency probably would have wanted to inspect this place sooner than they ended up doing it. it seems like they could have used a little more muscle. >> woodruff: is there a real concern though that other drugs could be... i mean, these two

additional cases obviously raise a red flag. but is there a concern ha still other drugs could be somehow contaminated from this center? >> sure. all 1200 or so drugs this company makes aren't being used anymore. f.d.a. recommended they be recalled, and the company said we're pulling them back. and stopped. that by itself tells you that here's a concern. f.d.a. doesn't put out these kinds of warnings. this is going to disrupt a whole bunch of patients' lives. just out of an abundance of caution. it's not clear there's a link between these two new cases that the f.d.a. is talking about and this company. they're being very careful here. they don't know how many people may have gotten them. at this point they're still figuring that out. it's going to cause a lot of worry and a lot of trouble for people. >> woodruff: sounds like we're still on the early side of all this. >> that's right. there's a pattern to outbreaks. here we're still seeing more cases. 19 new cases announced today. eight the day before. it was 163 last thursday. so we're still on the growing

side of the outbreak. you know, they stopped delivery of this company's drugs october 3. they're saying one to three weeks for symptoms to develop. talking about ones back to may. you know, we could be... it looks like we're going to be seeing more cases. there was a telling thing today in the map. c.d.c. released before they had been noting states where there were five or more cases. today they bumped it up. ten more cases they noted. that's kind of a sign that they're expecting to see more. >> woodruff: dan vergano, usa today, we thank you very much for talking with us. >> you bet. >> ifill: now, back to the presidential campaign, where lingering foreign policy challenges in libya and other arab spring countries have raised questions about u.s. leadership abroad. jeffrey brown has that. brown: the assault on the u.s. consulate in benghazi libya and the death of the american

ambassador continue to grow as fodder in the presidential campaign. last night traveling in peru, secretary of state hillary clinton directly addressed the question of who bears the blame for security failings in benghazi. >> i take responsibility. i'm in charge of the state department. 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. >> brown: clinton repeated the statement in writing today hours ahead the second presidential debate. just last week at a house hearing, one of her top aides acknowledged that u.s. officials in libya did ask for more security but were refused. the next night vice president biden had this to say. >> well, we weren't told they wanted more security. we did not know they wanted more security then. >> brown: white house officials meant that such requests don't go to the president and vice president and secretary clinton said the same last night. >> the president and the vice president certainly wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by

security professionals. >> brown: republicans, however, weren't buying it. in a statement senators john mccain, lindsey graham and kelly ayot said if the president was truly not aware of this rising threat level in benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team whose responsibility it is to keep the president informed. indeed what happened in libya has become the cutting-edge for republican criticism of president obama's overall response to upheavals in the middle east. vice presidential candidate paul ryan said as much during last week's debate. >> this benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it's indicative of a broader problem, and that is what we are watching on tv screens is the unraveling of the obama foreign policy which is making the world more chaotic and us less safe. >> reporter: democrats in turn charged that the romney-ryan camp is simply playing politics with the benghazi attack. on sunday obama campaign

strategist david axle rod again criticized romney's initial response. >> he jumped in right away the day of these attacks with half information in a way that was denounced by both republicans and democrats. there's no doubt that he's working hard to exploit this issue. >> brown: still presidential politics aside, the early hopes of the arab spring have given way to sobering reality. not just in libya. in egypt once america's staunch ally, the u.s. supported the move to oust long-time leader hosni mubarak. the ensuing election of the muslim brotherhood's mohammed morsi raised new questions about the country's direction and its relationship with the u.s. and in syria an ongoing civil war threatens to spill into turkey jordan and lebanon while islamic extremists threaten to overshadow the secular syrian groups backed by the west. we pick up on some of these questions with two men who have helped us analyze foreign policy challenges in the past.

zbigniew brzezinski was national security advisor to president jimmy carter and now is at the center for strategic and international studies. walter russell mead is professor of foreign affairs and the humanities at bard college. i want to start with the latest on libya with hillary clinton taking the blame for security at the benghazi consulate. where does that leave the matter of the responsibility of the white house, pote for the specific incident and the larger libya policy? >> well, i think secretary clinton was absolutely right that specific security requests don't go up from the state department to the president. so it would be a mistake to say that president obama is responsible for the failure to provide more protection in benghazi. secretary clinton did the right thing by taking responsibility herself. now, on the other hand, you have to ask, what would harry truman have done? what does it mean for the buck to stop here? in the same way that secretary clinton is responsible for what

happens in state department, the president to some degree is reponsible for what happens in the administration. but i certain don't think there was a situation where somebody said to president obama don't you think we need more security there and he said absolutely not. >> brown: zbigniew brzezinski, what do you make of the incident and the reaction to it and what does it tell us about the foreign policy debate in the campaign? >> i think it tells us that the foreign policy debate is being diverted to side issues. it's a tragedy what happened in human sense it's important. but in terms of large national policy, that's something discussed. i think those who are charging the president with responsibility here overlook the fact that there are presidents for failing to assume responsibility. as for example, prior to 9/11 when the president and the secretary of state then were briefed about the rising threat against the united states. >> brown: let me stay with you,

mr. brzezinski. when we look at the ryan-romney... excuse me, the romney-ryan team talking about this foreign policy mess, the unraveling as paul ryan referred to it, particularly including libya and the larger middle east policy, what do you see? what do you make of that? >> well, i'm afraid there is truth in the fact that the position of the united states in the middle east is unraveling. but one has to go back a number of years and ask what has set that process in motion? i'm afraid that the united states simply has fumbled over the years. the unique opportunity it had to shape a more stable and more peaceful middle east. >> brown: what do you mean by that? >> well, first of all, the israeli-palestinian peace issue. you know, today the middle east... the masses are stirring. every public opinion poll tells us the masses have a negative view of american position on that issue because they see the united states as failing to move

the peace process forward. i'm afraid there is some truth to that conclusion. >> brown: walter mead, what do you see when you hear about the use of the term like "unraveling of foreign policy"? >> well, i would say that we're clearly... the hope that president obama could sort of turn things around from the bush administration doesn't seem to have been fulfilled. you know, i think zbigniew is right, to some degree what happened there was president obama in those early weeks made the sort of claim in a sense that he was going to start a new relationship with the islamic world and pressuring israel to stop all settlements in the middle east is what he was going to do. unfortunately that was something he was not able to deliver on, probably shouldn't have made the pledge. but in any case, once that happened, the palestinians pretty much couldn't get back to

the peace process, you know, by being sort of... they couldn't be softer on israel than the president of the united states. basically they sensed that initial period in the early weeks, months of the obama administration. there has been no real progress on israeli-palestinian peace. i think zbigniew is correct that that has been a big problem for the united states. >> brown: but do you hear, mr. brzezinski, do you hear an alternative from the romney-ryan campaign? do you hear anybody talking about something that suggests kind of coherent policy? >> i'm afraid i have to say quite bluntly that so far the discussion of foreign policy has been a rather primitive level. i hope it will be much better in this debate. certainly the president knows the issues well. i hope the governor also knows those issues well. i hope they discuss them seriously but certainly not in terms of slogans about responsibility for this or for

that but rather in terms of what is actually at work today in the middle east. we're facing an explosive situation throughout the entire region. those who are pushing the united states to plunge into it either by becoming military engaged in syria or by striking at iran are in effect advocating that the united states puts the match to a container full of gasoline. >> brown: walter mead, have you heard an alternative put forward by governor romney? >> well, you know, i think we've heard a little bit of rhetoric about being tough and so on. but, you know, that i think is not the... hopefully not what governor romney is really about. i think what we really need between... at the next foreign policy debate between the two candidates is a serious discussion and i think again zbigniew is right, america's goal has to be not to get in deeper into a lot of wars and conflicts in the middle east.

but what are the policies that are most likely to secure our own vital interests in the region and minimize the risk of conflict with others? >> brown: specifically, walter, what would you want to ask... well, ask of both sides? what questions need to be asked to the two candidates? >> well, i think it would be interesting to hear from governor romney how is your policy different both from what president obama is doing and what president bush did? what would be the sort of third romney way that you think we ought to go? for president obama, the real question i would like to hear him talk about is, why haven't you spend more time explaining the afghanistan war, other policies of yours in the middle east? i think hopefully in the debate he'll do that but i don't really feel that president obama has taken the american people into his confidence about our middle

east policy. i don't mean all the little details and the sort of, you know, whether you're giving arms to kalid or jamil in syria or whatever but some sense of what is the strategic vision right now that the obama administration is pursuing. where do we stand in this problem of terror? where is it going? >> brown: same question to you, mr. brzezinski, what specific questions would you like to hear or ask of both candidates? >> i think walter put it extremely well. we need a serious discussion of what should be done and what can be done and what the united states must avoid doing. one of these things that it must avoid doing is becoming the solitary combatant in the middle east. there are people who are are talking loosely about the united states becoming militarily engagedded. they should be obligated to explain what is it exactly that they would do? how would they operate? who would be our friends that would be there with us? and what solution do we

envision? the fact of the matter is that today the middle east as a whole is undergoing an explosive pattern of change. i think caution and prudence are the points of departure for an intelligent policy here. and then once we establish some consensus on that, we can talk on the specifics. namely, whom do we involve with us in doing something hopefully constructive about syria? how do we negotiate with the iranians so that there is a positive outcome? how do we renew the peace process between the israelis and the palestinians? and it would be useful to hear the two candidates comment on each of these. >> brown: zbigniew brzezinski and walter russell mead, thanks so much. >> woodruff: next, the state of the middle class and the connection to trade and wages. we have been spent much time on the program chronicling the growing problems facing middle-

class americans. tonight, we look at some explanations offered for that in a new book, "the betrayal of the american dream," by investigative reporters donald barlett and james steele. our economics correspondent paul solman sat down with them, part of his ongoing reporting, "making sense of financial news." >> reporter: the pulitzer prize winning barlett and steele first chronicled growing income inequality at the philadelphia inquirer and later at "time" magazine. they now work for upscale vanity fair. but it was advertising age, the middle brow bible of the ad industry, that they quoted at the start of our interview. >> advertising age has written off the middle class in this country. they say the age of mass affluence is over. now you're going to have to learn to cater to the super rich and the affluent in other countries. because the middle class in china, brazil, india, that's the

source of the coming wealth not the u.s. middle class. >> reporter: barlett and steele believe is the real culprit is the theory of free trade. as promoted by economists like harvard's robert lawrence, a former clinton economic advisor to whom we put the question, what is the big idea? >> trade allows countries to specialize in the things they can do well when they meet the test of the market they raise living standards, they improve product quality. they improve technology. they improve choice. >> on the surface it sounds great. open trading. other countries. what's to be against? the problem is is when the theory was developed back in the early 1800s it was envisioned as countries operating comparably. the incomes of the united states and china are so disparate that it would never work. it's always going to be cheaper to go over to china to build what you want to build. >> reporter: as manufacturing

jobs migrated aboard, barlett and steele point out, the middle american standard of living sank steadily. >> free trade was always presented on the basis that everybody will benefit. you may lose your job but you'll get some other job. for the most part people said let the dirty jobs go. let those manual labor jobs go. if you're going to get the smart jobs in this country, the brain power. it not working out as everybody said it would because now many of those jobs are starting to go off shore faster than the old manufacturing jobs did snem the job drain especially to china has become a staple of both presidential campaigns. >> under obama we've lost over half a million manufacturing jobs. for the first time, china is beating us. >> romney's never stood up to china. all he's done is send them our jobs. >> reporter: and both candidates are speaking to eager ears. in a recent pew survey, seven in ten americans called the loss of u.s. jobs to china very serious.

but while china is the culprit may play in peoria, robert lawrence says it's a bum rap. >> the role of trade and the role of china has been vastly exaggerated as a reason for the declining jobs in manufacturing. if you go back to 1950, long before china was an issue or even the united states was engaged in much international trade, you'll see that manufacturing jobs were declining. as a share of total employment. we're losing jobs in manufacturing basically for the same reason as we lost jobs in agriculture. we became a lot more productive at growing food. as a result we needed fewer farmers. >> reporter: today we need fewer factory workers. but barlett and steele insist corporate america at the very least speeded up the process. in order to maximize profits for their investors and pay for themselves. >> the bottom-line question is what kind of a society do we

want? do we want a society built on the principle that the only thing that matters is the lowest possible price? or a society built on the principle that everyone should have a living wage? and those are going to be two very different societies. this goes back again so what we're talking about the people up here. they don't want everyone to have a living wage. >> reporter: why don't they? because they make more money the other way. >> reporter: not in the long run. i mean if you have lots of americans who are out of the game entirely who can't buy their products and so forth... >> they're replaced by a chinese middle class, brazillian middle class, indian middle class. >> reporter: you actuallthink we could have an economy in this country in which lots of americans would simply be not part of the economy at all? >> irrelevant. you know, they'll have jobs but these are going to be jobs that don't pay much. i mean that's the trend you see already. >> reporter: what can you really do about trade?

>> basically what we mean on trade is we have to get a little tougher. we're just suggesting that when there are obstacles, get a little tough with people and impose some duties if you have to. >> reporter: meaning? protective tariffs. you don't have to do it on every good or product. you don't have to do it on every country but when something is at stake, stand up for things. >> reporter: while most economists would scoff at such talk, president obama has been getting tougher. filing a trade case last month against chinese car exporters the same day he hit the place in blue-collar ohio. >> we've brought more trade cases against china in one term than the previous administration did in two. and every case we've brought that's been decided we won. >> reporter: and mitt romney promises that if elected he'll be even tougher. >> when china cheats in trade and steals our jobs unfairly

we're going to finally say no and make them accountable. ( cheers and applause ) >> reporter: but to both candidates and both authors, professor lawrence counsels caution >> we need to get tough in opening foreign markets and signing trade agreents that increase our exports. but if we start to discriminate against foreigners with tariffs, they'll do the same to us and what we'll end up in is a giant trade war in which we'll all be losers. >> reporter: what's more, say economists, what america's best at is high tech, biotech, innovation. that's where the future jobs are. not on the factory floor. >> an awful lot of people in manufacturing are saying, we need to preserve and enhance this because it's at the heart of a lot of innovation. you can't just have your designers turning the stuff over to robots and things of that sort. you still have have to have human beings involved in this process. and the closer you have that process together, the better your end product is.

this is the great contrast with a country like germany or switzerland which has these very sophisticated apprentice programs where people are trained for years and years. we need to put more of an emphasis on that in this country. >> you're suggesting apprenticeships, government programs, and many many people in this country say, hey, the last thing we need is more government >> maybe things will have to get a lot worse before people realize that there are some things, some positive things that government can do. these things didn't use to be so partisan in this country. we used to be able to ghettoing and do things for the benefit of everybody. we hope one of these days we're back to that. we're definitely not there now. >> reporter: don barlett, jim steele, thank you very much >> thank you . >> ifill: finally tonight, word out of cuba that the communist country will begin to allow some of its citizens to more easily

leave the country. ray suarez has the story. suarez: for more than 50 years, cubans looking to travel abroad faced daunting restrictions. but the communist government formally announced today it will no longer require an exit visa and a letter of invitation from a foreign institution or individual. starting in january, those desiring to depart cuba need only a passport and a visa from the destination country. they can remain abroad for up to two years and then request an extension. in havana today the announcement brought surprise and delight. >> i'm very happy, really happy because we can now see our families. we can reunite and come and go just like everywhere else in the traveling world >> suarez: the current limitations were put in place shortly after the cuban revolution that put fidel castro in power in 1959. the impending change is the latest under president raul

castro who brought limited government reforms since replacing his ailing elder brother in 2008. it also comes amid the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis that nearly brought the u.s. and the soviet union to nuclear war. the response in washington today was cautious. state department spokeswoman victoria newland >> we want to see the human rights of the cuban people respected. this is certainly a step. but i would advise that even with regard to this step, we await further information because, as i said, it's not being implemented until january 14. we need to see how it is implemented >> suarez: even once the new rules are in place, not everyone is automatically free to go. travel limits will likely remain for doctors and other professionals to prevent a brain drain. the cuban decree also said officials will deny passports if they deem letting an individual

go abroad could affect national security. for more i'm joined by maria for more, i'm joined by maria de los angeles torres, a cuban-born american who is now the director and professor of latin american and latino studies at the university of illinois in chicago. her books include "by heart/de memoria: cuban women's journeys in and out of exile" and "the lost apple: operation pedro pan, cuban children in the u.s., and the promise of a better future." professor, cuba has been a particularly tough place for its citizens to travel from, for some time. if you stay out of the country for more than 11 months you lose your right to residency. you lose your health care. is this a big change? >> i think it's a very significant change to the extent that this law, which was actually called the law of definitive abandonment, a very brave world, if you will, kind of description here. and the law prevented cubans from returning.

initially it was actually 60 days. the 11 months comes much later. but in 1961 if you left for whatever reason and did not return within 60 days, you lost your home, your property, and your right to be returned to your family. so many families really have been divided by this law. now having said this, i think we need to really look at the overall context. perhaps maybe talk about what this law... what this change means and what we could maybe glean in terms of the behind-the-scenes of a cuban government >> suarez: why now? what do you think prompts this change at this very moment? >> i think, ray, that there's a couple of readings of this. one, it is the change in policy itself shows there's a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes. one reading could be that the ministry of the interior, which is the agency and the institution in charge of intelligence, as well as the

control of populations coming in and out, is actually losing ground. they will no longer have this power to be able to give exit visas to at least a broad section of the cuban population. they have historically been at odd s with the military. the military being the ministry of the interior being more in the fiddle camp. we see this over and over again. there's also, i think, the coincidence of interest between ideologues and practicing ma tiffs. the ideologues have always said let them go. make it easy for them to go because it purifies the nation. the pragmatists see this as a move toward putting... aligning cuba into what really the majority of the world, almost every country does not control people from leaving their country. so the pragmatists see this. i think interestingly as well one of the things that has happened in the last year, i mean, i think the government has changed laws to keep up with what was already going on on the ground. one of the things that has been

happening is people do travel. they have passports. they have found grandmothers and family members in spain, venezuela. so there's a lot of people who actually have passports. they still had to get their exit visa from the cuban government. now what are these people doing? they're going abroad and they're bringing back goods so in a certain sense the new, if you will, the new economists are seeing this as a way of opening up trade and bringing... and allowing for goods to flow into country in ways that perhaps the embargo doesn't allow. >> suarez: as i mentioned earlier, there will be exceptions. it's written into the law that you have part of the human capital created by the revolution, it's not going to be so easy to go. i assume that means people who are very well trained, whose skills are in demand. >> right. i mean but that could be almost anybody. so again the devil is always in the detail in these kinds of policies. but those of us who read cuban

politics understand that a lot of these changes never happened dramatically. they happen very piecemeal. and behind these piecemeal what you find really are very shifting kinds of factions and power struggles and distributions of power. so if we look at it that way, i think it is... it at least raises the question, what's really behind this >> suarez: raul castro came to the presidency in 2008 promising change. he held a national party congress to talk about it. is this part of that trend? >> well, i think that raul's people, if you will, the military have... a lot of them have been more on the pragmatic end of the spectrum i think in cuban politics. in many ways what i think that we have seen is on the one hand the law and changes in policies catching up with what was

already going on in the country. not so much changes that then allowed people to do these commerce and, you know, have their beauty parlors and their restaurants. i mean that was already happening. so in a certain sense they were keeping up with that. on the other hand, raul hassles implemented a fairly draconian policy against human rights activists as well as some of the people that were perceived to be enemies of his factions. i mean, this summer alone there were arrests of very key government policy makers that worked... we haven't heard that in the press. people who had been in charge of cuba's policy towards the cuban community were also arrestedded. foreigners who were in charge of developing all the golf courses and the resorts in the keys, they were also arrested. so i think that we have to be

careful to not look at this as a big, sweeping change but rather understand that we will see certain changes that fulfill pragmatic needs of the government, that try to keep up with people, that try to keep discontent down. at the same time that the control and security apparatus is still well and aligned. >> suarez: professor, good to talk to you. >> you too, ray. >> woodruff: again, the other major developments of the day. president obama and mitt romney arrived in hempstead, new york, for round two of their debates, this one a town hall meeting at hofstra university. the social security administration announced more than 56 million americans will get a cost-of-living adjustment of 1.7% next year. on average, it works out to $250 a year. and police in the netherlands

searched for seven paintings by monet, picasso and others, stolen from a museum last night. they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. get a different perspective on tonight's debate from the youngest voters. hari sreenivasan has more. >> sreenivasan: how are college students covering tonight's debate? we've got a roundup of some of the best reporting from college news sites from around the country. and remember: you, too, can approve this message, by starring in your own political campaign ad. make an attack ad or a positive one by clicking on the newshour's ad maker. that's on the home page. and on making sense, our resident headhunter nick corcodilos gives tips on writing the perfect cover letter. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, we'll have reaction to tonight's presidential debate. i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you online, plus here at 9:00 p.m. eastern time for full coverage and analysis of tonight's debate. thank you, and good night.

major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: intel's philosophy of investing for the future we're helping to bring these new capabilities to market. we're investing billions of dollars in r&d around the globe to help create the technologies that we hope will be the heart of tomorrow's innovations. i believe by investing today in technologicalled advances here at intel, we can help make a better tomorrow. >> united health care. online at u.h.c. dot-com.

and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is bbc world news. funding for this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu. newman's own foundation. and union bank. >> at union bank, our relationship managers use their expertise in global finance to guide you through the business strategies and opportunities of international commerce. we put our extended global network to work for a wide range of companies, from small range of companies, from small businesses to